I was having a conversation with a friend who had spent years working full time while putting himself through college. His business degree had landed him a good job in the corporate support organization of a large electric utility. He was happy to have it and his smarts, maturity, and work ethic had served him well.

Yet to some extent he lamented his choice of a four-year business degree because he saw friends in nuclear technical fields advancing faster and earning more money. Rather than being graduates of four-year colleges or universities, many had started their careers with an associate degree, military training or a certificate in a skilled trade. In many cases this meant they began earning more at an earlier age and had little student loan debt. If my colleague had been aware of these opportunities he may have chosen a different path. In the least he would have made an informed decision.

Even in the highly technical field of nuclear energy there are many jobs that do not require a 4-year degree for an entry-level position. Most of these have starting wages of about $50,000 per year (more if you include overtime and bonuses). In each of these positions there is an established career progression. Pay increases as you complete company-provided training and achieve higher levels of qualification. I have known many coworkers in these types of jobs who with just two or three years of experience routinely earn more than $100,000 per year with overtime and bonuses. Even better, these positions are the entry points for supervisory and management positions meaning there is opportunity for long-term career growth.

So what are these great jobs that don’t require a 4-year degree? Here are some examples:

Radiation protection technicians monitor radiation levels throughout the nuclear energy facility. They also maintain and calibrate radiation protection instruments and equipment. They play an important role in helping fellow employees work safely in areas where radiation levels are greater than natural background.

Electrical Technician (also called nuclear electrician)

Electrical technicians install, repair and maintain the highly complex electrical and electronic equipment in the nuclear plant. They work on power plant equipment like motors, circuit breakers, electrical cables, switchgear, generators, transformers, and batteries.

Instrument & Controls Technician

I&C technicians are the “industrial computer technicians” in nuclear energy facilities. They install, test, calibrate, troubleshoot, and repair nuclear plant instrumentation and control equipment and systems.

Nuclear plant operators start up, monitor, shut down, and test systems and equipment throughout the nuclear energy facility. They also ensure equipment is properly removed from service so that maintenance may be safely performed. Once work is complete they return the systems to service. The nuclear plant operator position is the first step in becoming a licensed reactor operator or senior reactor operator.

When I speak to young people about careers in the nuclear industry I often suggest they consider an alternative to starting with a four-year degree; instead why not start with an associate degree from a community college leading to one of these positions. Later you can return to school using the company’s tuition reimbursement program and earn your bachelors degree. This approach is far less costly and gets young people into the workforce sooner with a highly marketable set of skills.

Demand is high in all of these positions. Each nuclear energy facility employs more than 100 workers in these types of jobs. Today there are 100 nuclear energy facilities in operation in the USA and 435 around the world with another 70 under construction (four are under construction in the USA). The US Bureau of Labor Statistics projected a 14% increase in the number of nuclear technician jobs between 2010 and 2020. That number understates the real opportunity because their data does not include hiring needed to replace retiring workers. Over the next several years the need to replace retiring workers means utilities in the United States will be hiring thousands of workers into these positions. These skills are readily transferable to other industries too (petrochemical, advanced manufacturing, and other energy industry segments).

]]>http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2&p=16620The Global Nuclear Renaissance Rolls On, Career Opportunities Continuehttp://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1658
http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1658#commentsThu, 12 Dec 2013 04:10:10 +0000http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1658Despite claims by anti-nuclear groups of the pending demise of nuclear energy production in the United States, the nuclear renaissance is alive and well. According to the non-partisan Energy Information Administration, nuclear energy production in the USA will continue to expand for the next 25 years.

Electricity generation from nuclear power plants grows by 14 percent in the AEO2013 Reference case, from 790 billion kilowatt-hours in 2011 to 903 billion kilowatt-hours in 2040, accounting for about 17 percent of total generation in 2040 (compared with 19 percent in 2011). Nuclear generating capacity increases from 101 gigawatts in 2011 to a high of 114 gigawatts in 2025 through a combination of new construction (5.5 gigawatts), uprates at existing plants (8.0 gigawatts), and retirements (0.6 gigawatts).

Coupled with retirements among the 120,000 people who work in the nuclear industry, this expansion means continued career opportunities building, operating and maintaining the nation’s fleet of commercial reactors. And this is just the start. In addition to the 100 commercial nuclear plants operating in United States, there are 335 in operation in other nations and 73 more under construction (including four in the USA).

Recently announced shutdowns of four nuclear energy facilities in the USA has done little to dampen the demand for talent; the industry has more than enough demand for knowledgeable workers to absorb those displaced by plant closures. While some older nuclear plants will gradually go out of service over the next few decades they’ll be replaced with larger power plants that require larger staff sizes. New technologies like small modular reactors may add even more jobs in advanced manufacturing and construction.

What does all this mean for career opportunities? Every nuclear plant employs at about 600 to 1500 people depending on the power plant size, the technology used, and the number of reactors at the facility. In the USA alone the combination of modest expansion and hiring to replace about 40% of the workforce over the next decade means nuclear energy companies will hire 30,000 to 50,000 new engineers, operators, and technicians. The numbers are even larger in other countries where growth will create more than 70,000 career opportunities as new facilities come on line.

]]>http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2&p=16580Only the US Government Would Call a Tax a Subsidyhttp://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1594
http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1594#commentsMon, 24 Dec 2012 13:44:53 +0000http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1594Podcast Episode 115 – Download the mp3 file

Play the Podcast

My first reaction was “Wow! Did I just read that correctly?!”

It was one of those “ah-ha moments” when a seemingly mundane statement leapt out of the page and whacked me on the forehead. This time the catalyst was a twitter reply from Chris Pragman (@ChrisPragman) who describes himself as an “Avid Podcast listener, Engineer, Nuclear Power, Fire Protection, and beer geek with a long commute!”

You see, I had posted a tweet earlier in the day about the cost to taxpayers of some “green energy” jobs. There’s a new wind farm in Oregon called Shepherds Flat that received federal cash grants totaling $490 million under the guise of job creation. For that grand sum the Shepherds Flat project will create 35 new jobs. The math is easy; $14 million per “green energy” job. Our tax dollars at work!

This tidbit about Shepherds Flat was part of a larger report by the Energy Tribune that among other things compared the relative size of US government subsidies to various energy industries. The report by Robert Bryce calculated subsidy dollars per unit energy produced and concluded the renewable energy industry receives 6.5 times more federal government subsidies than the nuclear industry, and 12 times more than the oil and gas industry. That fact really didn’t surprise me considering the billions of dollars in grants, production tax credits, and favorable depreciation rules the government lavishes upon anything branded with the “renewable” label. Then Chris asked a great question, “What do they consider nuclear subsidies?”

When I dug into that question I learned the Congressional Budget Office is tasked with tracking the amount the government spends subsidizing various industries, and they publish their findings periodically. There it was on page 3: $900 million in “subsidies” for the “favorable tax treatment of nuclear decommissioning funds.” Hmmm. What could that be?

You see, every nuclear plant owner is required by federal law to set aside funds to ensure there’ll be enough money to pay for decommissioning the plant when the time comes. Typically plant operators add to the fund each year and over time the fund grows until it’s used. The NRC monitors each fund and will require plant owners to make additional payments if they think they’re behind. These funds are essentially forced savings accounts that add to each nuclear plants annual operating expenses.

So what’s the “favorable tax treatment?” It turns out Title 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code requires interest or other investment earnings of nuclear plant decommissioning funds to be taxed at “only” 20%. Maybe I’m alone in this, but being required by law to set up a fund, then being taxed on that fund’s growth hardly fits the definition of a “subsidy!” Other sources of energy are not required to set up such funds – they carry the potential future costs of dismantling equipment as liabilities on their balance sheets. In the case of nuclear plants they’re forced to set aside capitol in government mandated and monitored funds, then the government takes 20% of the fund’s earnings.

Anyway, in 2009 the CBO calculated this “favorable tax treatment” to be worth $900 million, and they called that a “subsidy.” That’s quite a different kind of subsidy from the cash grants, tax credits, and accelerated depreciation enjoyed by the renewable energy industry. Personally, I have a tough time viewing this as a subsidy at all.

Chris, thanks for asking the question! I learned something new today, and maybe some of you out there did too.

Happy Birthday to This Week in Nuclear!

On Dec 27 This Week in Nuclear will turn seven years old. I would like to express my heartfelt “thanks” to all of you who have supported and continue to support the blog and podcast!

Spain imports fuel for about 51 % of their electricity production in the form of coal and natural gas. Payments for these imported commodities contribute to a debilitating trade imbalance. Nuclear energy makes up the lion’s share (47%) of Spain’s domestic energy production. Their eight nuclear energy facilities add tens of thousands of jobs and billions of euros per year to the national economy while reducing the need for imported coal or gas. At the same time Spain’s nuclear plants provide reliable, predictable energy without greenhouse gas emissions.

The amount of renewable energy generated in Spain has increased considerably over the last several years. In fact, in 2012 wind energy production exceeded nuclear energy production for brief periods when demand was low, some nuclear plants were out of service, and wind conditions were nearly optimal. Unfortunately, Spain’s methods of encouraging investment in renewables have contributed to their current financial crises. The Spanish electricity industry is carrying $32 billion of debt, putting serious strain on an already faltering economy.

Spain’s Domestic and Imported Sources of Electricity (2011)

Spain began deregulating their electricity supply system in the late 1990’s. Their approach was eerily similar to the failed California experiment; they removed price controls to allow power generators to compete among themselves, but they limited rates paid by customers. As wholesale energy prices rose utilities were unable to recover the higher costs through higher rates to customers. The result was predictable: electric utilities began loosing money on a grand scale. Since 2005 annual “energy deficits” have been in the billions of euros per year. With slight-of-hand economics, the Spanish government allowed utilities to “bank” their annual deficits against future earnings. Unfortunately those future earnings never materialized and deficits ballooned.

A the same time Spain (like California) began a heavily subsidized renewable energy program that included “feed-in tariffs” which guaranteed wind and solar generators above market prices for all of the energy they could produce. Consequently utilities were forced to buy wind and solar energy at inflated rates, but were not allowed to recover the costs because of those same price controls. Solar and wind energy investors raked in billions of euros per year while the utility deficit grew even faster. By some accounts electric utility debt in Spain now stands at $32 billion.

These out-of-whack energy policies cost Spanish workers dearly; for every renewable energy job created more than five existing jobs were lost and unemployment soared to over 20%. According to the Canada Free Press:

For each megawatt of wind energy installed, 4.27 jobs were lost, and for each megawatt of solar energy installed, 12.7 jobs were lost.

Eventually it became clear the Spanish government would have to act to curtail the exploding debt and rescue the utilities from bankruptcy. Earlier this year they stopped granting requests for new feed-in tariffs. Beginning in January 2013 they’re implementing a new 6% flat tax on all electricity production. In addition, they’ve singled out nuclear energy for “special” taxes they are calling a “nuclear waste generation and storage tax.”

Let’s get this straight:Spain’s national energy policies enriched wind and solar energy investors while bankrupting utilities and contributing to massive job losses. Now they’re calling on nuclear energy operators, their largest source of domestic energy to foot the bill! Not only is this course of action irrational and unfair, it punishes the domestic energy production and job creation they desperately need and it perpetuates favoritism for expensive renewables that created the problem in the first place.

The first victim has already fallen to the anti-nuclear tax; the Santa María de Garoña nuclear plant is being forced out of business. Garoña is a 446 MW BWR that began commercial operation in 1971. The plant’s owner says the new 153 million euro tax that will go into effect in January is more than ten times the plant’s annual profit. They have no choice but to shut the plant down for the last time on Sunday, December 23. Hundreds of jobs will be lost at the plant and in surrounding communities. Since Garoña provides about 1.4% of Spain’s electricity, utilities will be forced to import more coal and natural gas to make up for lost base load generation.

With lost jobs, lost revenues, and rising energy imports Spain’s energy death spiral continues.

]]>http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2&p=15241Seattle Monks Protest While Dalai Lama Supports Nuclear Energyhttp://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1509
http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1509#commentsMon, 03 Dec 2012 23:02:37 +0000http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1509Last week a group of Buddhist monks joined the protest against San Onofre Nuclear Plant. The local press made a big show of the spectacle as if the presence of members of a Seattle monastery somehow added stature to the demonstration and validity to their claims.

The monks said they also want to call attention to what they believe are the global dangers of nuclear power. “We need to shut down the San Onofre,” Gyosen Sawada of Los Angeles, who said he was born in Fukushima, Japan, told the group before beginning a three-hour walk from Dana Point Harbor. “No more Hiroshima. No more Nagasaki. No more Three Mile Island. No more Fukushima. No more San Onofre.”

As is so often the case with anti-nuclear activists, these monks toss all things nuclear into one evil pile; in their minds atomic bombs and nuclear energy facilities are equally vile. Funny how they avoided mention of CT scans, diagnostic x-rays, and nuclear medicine which account for virtually all of the man-made radiation exposure we receive (even for members of the public around the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant).

I guess they missed the memo from the Dalai Lama who, after the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant went on the record in support of nuclear energy. The Tibetan Buddhist leader said he supports nuclear energy as a way to bridge the socioeconomic gap in developing nations and in the absence of more efficient alternative energy sources. That’s a pretty insightful view from a leader who understands the causes of human suffering and the connection between access to energy and poverty. He also recognizes alternatives like wind and solar energy will be difficult to expand on the scale needed to alleviate global poverty.

We might expect these monks to hold similarly informed views, after all they come from a Japanese Shingon monastery. This set of Buddhist teachings falls under the Vajranaña school, which also includes Tibetan Buddhism. On the other hand, one of the monks described himself as a “homey from the projects in New York City.” Perhaps he’s been more influenced by the misguided energy policies of NY Governor Andy Cuomo than by the teachings of the renown Tibetan spiritual leader.

Activists, medical practitioners and politicians who have demanded moratoriums [on uranium mining] may have various reasons for doing so, but their claims that the public and environment are at risk are fundamentally wrong.

That about sums up the facts on the safety of uranium mining and the validity of motives of those who oppose it. What’s particularly noteworthy about this statement is its source: Michael Binder, the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It’s impressive to see this level of leadership from the Canadian equivalent of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

It’s also in stark contrast with the actions of former NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko who remained silent last year when the US Department of Interior banned uranium mining for 20 years across 4000 square km of Arizona. Their excuse was “protecting the Grand Canyon,” but the area in question is outside both the Grand Canyon and the buffer zone that protects the park.

It would be great to see new NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane following Mr. Binder’s lead to dispel the myths around uranium mining and take a first step in overturning the arbitrary ban.

]]>http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2&p=14901Anti-Nuclear Hysterics, not Melted Reactors to Blame for Fukushima Health Impactshttp://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1473
http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1473#commentsSun, 11 Mar 2012 23:19:06 +0000http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1473As is often the case, the passage of time yields clarity about events, and the nuclear power plant accident at Fukushima is no different. It has become clear that the misinformation and hysterics by anti-nuclear groups and individuals were mostly wrong. Their doomsday prophesizing actually worsened human suffering and environmental impacts by contributing to unwise decisions by political leaders in Japan and elsewhere to shut down nuclear plants. In contrast, bloggers and experts from within the nuclear community accurately predicted outcomes and human health impacts.

As was predicted on this blog and elsewhere, the multi-barrier reactor containment design protected the public. Contrary to claims by anti-nuclear groups, the melted cores did NOT burn through the reactor vessels. The containment structures remained virtually intact. The damaged reactor fuel remained inside the reactor vessels and containment systems.

Despite preposterous claims by Greenpeace and others, there were no chunks of plutonium scattered across the countryside. Only radioactive gasses escaped over the land, and most of that gas was short lived Iodine that has long since decayed away.

As reported on Bloomberg and other news sources, no one in the public was harmed by radiation from the damaged reactors. A small number of plant workers received higher than normal radiation exposures, without lasting effects. Any hypothetical future health effects will be immeasurably low and will be indistinguishable from normal disease rates within the general population.

No one, not even the “Fukushima 50″, was exposed to life threatening amounts of radiation. Journalists who flew across the Pacific to cover the story received more radiation exposure from cosmic rays in flight than they received from the reactors once on the ground.

The visually spectacular hydrogen explosions of the plant buildings, while providing great fodder for anti-nuclear rhetoric had little impact on the safety of the reactors, and harmed no one.

The unit 4 fuel storage pools did not empty of water and did not catch on fire. The fuel there remained safely submerged and suffered no damage of any consequence.

Finally, there was no need for the 50-mile evacuation zone ordered by NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko. His decision still has nuclear experts scratching their heads and wondering why. Jaczko’s actions demonstrated he lacks the experience and knowledge to ask the right questions at crucial moments. In addition, he lacked the wisdom to recognize other more credible information was available that contradicted his view. He needlessly rushed forward with an ill-advised decision that was horribly wrong.

This is not to imply there were no environmental or economic impacts from the reactor accident – of course there were! The expensive cleanup in surrounding areas will take years and will cost billions. This is but a small fraction of the total cost of recovery from the horrific earthquake and tsunami.

The earthquake and tsunami were responsible for untold human suffering and devastation. That is where the focus of the world should have been and should continue to be. The problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant accident have contributed needlessly to Japan’s economic burden by prompting the irrational shutdown of nuclear plants across the country. This has caused energy shortages and billions of dollars of additional costs from skyrocketing imports of fossil fuels. Of course, the fossil fuels providers are scrambling to rake in tens of billions of dollars in profits.

The health effects to Japan’s population were NOT from radiation, but from stress caused by the unfounded fear of future health effects. The responsibility for this lies squarely on anti-nuclear activists who relished in spouting fatalistic, exaggerated claims, and on an uninformed media who presented those claims as virtual facts while downplaying opposing views from true experts in the field.

]]>http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2&p=14734Explore a Great Career in Nuclear Energyhttp://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1455
http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1455#commentsWed, 25 Jan 2012 01:57:41 +0000http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1455Note: this post also appears at the ANS Nuclear Cafe

What better way to celebrate National Nuclear Science Week than to acknowledge amazing career opportunities that exist for people interested in joiningthe nuclear renaissance. If you are a middle or high school student (or are the parent of one) considering college alternatives, you would be hard pressed to find a better investment than earning an associates or bachelors degree in nuclear-related science, engineering, or technology.

Opportunities for entry level positions have not been this rich at any time during the past three decades, and the nuclear industry is partnering with many schools to ensure graduates have the knowledge and skill for success as power plant engineers, operators, and technicians. Because of a combination of national and international trends, there have never been more opportunities for young people to begin careers in the nuclear industry.

About 120,000 people are currently employed in the U.S. nuclear industry. Over the next several years, many of these workers will retire. As a result, the industry will need to hire more than 25,000 new employees just to maintain the existing workforce. The economic slowdown over the past few years has caused many workers to delay their retirement.

Today retirements are once again on the rise because 401K balances have recovered and workers have earned additional credits in pension plans. For example, in 2011 about 2,000 workers retired from the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States, prompting many utilities to increase hiring. Four new nuclear plants being built in Georgia and South Carolina will each add up to 2,400 workers during construction, plus 400 to 700 permanent jobs when each is operating. In addition, the nuclear industry is booming overseas with more than 60 plants under construction around the world and many more planned. All of this means ample opportunities for rewarding careers in many nuclear related fields.

The industry hires almost every type of engineer, not just nuclear engineers. The most common are mechanical, electrical, civil, and power systems engineers. Since there are engineering colleges and universities in every state that offer one or more of these degree programs, opportunities are plentiful. Earning a bachelors degree in these engineering majors opens the door to an entry-level engineer position with a starting salary of approximately $60,000 to $65,000.

Some of the positions in greatest demand at nuclear plants are power plant operators and technicians. These opportunities generally require an associate’s degree or equivalent training. Starting salaries range from around $45,000 per year to about $50,000. As workers gain experience, salaries can rise $20,000 or higher to an average of $65,000 to $70,000, and overtime pay often adds thousands more to annual income.

In the past, finding a college that offered education courses for future operators and technicians could be difficult, but this is no longer the case. Several years ago the industry began working with colleges across the United States to create new degree programs. Today there are more than 40 community colleges around the U.S. offering what is known as the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum (NUCP). The NUCP is a standardized associates degree program that prepares students for careers as nuclear operators and technicians. Students who earn a B grade or better in their core courses are awarded a transferable certificate that is recognized at all 104 nuclear plants.

For workers interested in advancing into leadership roles, these positions in engineering, operations, and other technical fields are excellent starting points for future management positions.

According to the College Board, the national average for community college tuition and fees is about $3,000 per year. Thus, for about $6,000 a student with a solid math and science background can attend an NUCP school for two years and earn an associates degree and a transferable credential. This would qualify them for an entry-level position as an operator or technician earning a starting salary of $45,000 to $50,000. This is certainly one of the greatest deals in education today!

]]>http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2&p=14550Nuclear Plants and Grid Blackoutshttp://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1421
http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1421#commentsSun, 18 Sep 2011 23:20:29 +0000http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1421On September 8, 2011 the electrical grid in and around San Diego, California experienced a blackout that lasted for more than 12 hours. By some accounts more than 5 million people were effected. The initiating event was a human error that caused a large transmission line from Arizona to turn off unexpectedly. I recently discussed why a single failure as occurred that day should not have caused such a widespread grid failure, and how New York City will be much more susceptible to similar events if Indian Point Nuclear Plant is shutdown prematurely.

As it was designed to do, the San Onofre nuclear plant automatically disconnected itself from the grid and shut down then the blackout occurred. This was done as part of the plant’s protective scheme to shield the plant from unintended consequences from the falling grid voltage and frequency. A similar thing happened to nine nuclear plants in the eastern USA during the blackout of 2003.

Why do nuclear plants trip off line when a blackout happens?

While this is a somewhat simplified answer, it covers the fundamentals. Please be aware my experience is with pressurized water reactors, but the same basic principles should apply to boiling water reactors.

The nuclear plant’s generator, like that of any electrical generator supplying the grid, is electrically locked to the voltage and frequency of the grid. As grid voltage drops, so does the voltage sensed inside the plant. Most large electric loads inside nuclear plants are electric motors on pumps, valves, fans, and other such equipment. To drive a fixed mechanical load connected to the shaft, a motor must draw a fixed amount of power from the power line. The amount of power the motor draws is roughly related to the voltage times current (amps). Thus, when voltage gets low, the current must get higher to provide the same amount of power. Thus, as voltage drops, current inside the motors rises. This increase in current can cause overheating and short circuits.

Note: the paragraph above was revised to correct an oversimplification & error in my original post. The results are the same, my explanation was lacking.

Also, normally the alternating current on the grid operates at 60 cycles per second (60 hertz). As the grid collapses, the frequency begins to drop. If allowed to continue this would cause the nuclear plant’s reactor coolant pumps to run slower, thus moving less water through the reactor. Less cooling water could potentially lead to higher than normal fuel temperatures. To protect against the reactor operating with degraded cooling water flow, nuclear plants have various means of sensing low grid frequency or coolant flow. When electrical frequency or reactor cooling flow drops below a defined threshold it triggers an automatic shut down. Some of these protection schemes are anticipatory in nature – they happen predicatively before the grid situation has a chance to deteriorate to the point of causing a challenge to the reactor or plant equipment.

Why can’t nuclear plants stay on line when a black out happens?

While it’s possible to design a nuclear plant to be able to stay online during a loss of off-site power, it would require some large and expensive equipment, and a redesign of the reactor protection system.

The loss of electrical power to equipment inside the plant is not the only aspect of a loss of off-site power (LOOP) that designers have to consider. Another significant challenge is designing mechanical and control systems to withstand an instantaneous loss of load from 100% power to around 10% power. The reactor is putting out 100% power one instant, and the next instant the “grid” is gone and the only load on the rector is in-house loads. Since reactors can not change load that quickly, the reactor will be generating excess heat until reactor power can drop to balance with the new load. While reactor power is greater than the load there is excess heat being generated. That heat has to go somewhere; it causes the water in the reactor coolant system to heat up and to expand. Thus, to accommodate a 100% loss of load a nuclear plant needs a reactor coolant system with a large surge volume to accept that expanding water, and a large heat dump system to reject the extra heat. Both of these attributes can be designed into a reactor system – I personally operated a prototype naval reactor that was designed to accommodate a near instantaneous 100% load rejection. However, in a land based power plant the extra system hardware would be costly. Since base load power plants are not expected to withstand a loss of grid transient often, it is tough to justify the extra expense.

It’s possible that some of the new small modular reactors could be designed to stay on line during a LOOP. Perhaps some of my SMR friends will add some comments to this post below?

]]>http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2&p=14212Only the Energy Impoverished Run Towards a Gasoline Spillhttp://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1381
http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1381#commentsThu, 15 Sep 2011 03:06:53 +0000http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1381There was a horrible accident in Kenya this week. More than 100 people were burned to death, and hundreds more were injured when a gasoline pipeline began leaking and then exploded. My heart goes out to the victims, and their families, and to all the people of Kenya who are dealing with the worst industrial disaster in their history. Eyewitnesses reported seeing burning people leaping into a nearby river trying to extinguish the flames that engulfed them. Rescue workers had to place a net across the river to catch the charred bodies of the dead so they would not wash down stream. The death toll continues to grow, and most of the 100+ injured including many children are not expected to survive.

The pipeline runs through Sinai, a Nairobi ghetto of corrugated tin and cardboard huts. When the pipe began leaking hundreds of people gathered around to scoop up the spilled gasoline. As the crowd grew a spark from a cigarette butt or some other heat source ignited the fuel. The blast incinerated scores of people nearby. Flames cascaded down on nearby huts then raced through the crowded slum.

Trying to image the chaotic and horrific scene, I realized there was something so far outside my own paradigm that I had to stop for moment to collect my thoughts…who runs TOWARDS a leaking gasoline pipeline? Maybe that’s a silly question; but if anyone reading this came upon a leaking gasoline pipeline they would stop, back away, and call for help. You would keep your distance while warning others not to go near for fear of igniting the leak and causing a fire or explosion. If you were forced to approach the leak you would fear for your life and rightfully so!

So what is different between you and the hundreds of people in Kenya that did the exact opposite? As word spread through Sinai about the leaking pipeline hundreds of people grabbed every container they could find and rushed towards the explosive spill! You might settle on a simple socioeconomic answer: because they are poor they’ll risk their lives for a few dollars worth of anything of value. The real answer is a lot more complicated. These people are not only poor, they are super poor, and one of the factors that separates the poor from truly impoverished is the lack of access to even basic energy sources that human beings need to survive. They are energy destitute.

Another way of saying this is availability of plentiful, accessible energy is the greatest single factor that allows people to rise out of poverty. All of the world’s developed economies got that way because they had access to plentiful supplies of energy. For the energy destitute, a few kilowatts will replace dung or scraps of wood for cooking and warmth. A few more kW and a village will have running water and refrigeration, and fewer people die of water or food born disease. A bit more and machines can aid in harvesting or processing food in larger quantities. Even more and suddenly the schools have electric lights and access to information that accelerates learning and further socioeconomic growth.

The people who ran towards that leaking gasoline pipeline did so knowing there was a risk of fire and death, but they accepted the risk and went anyway. They placed such a high value in a few gallons of gasoline that they consciously or subconsciously decided it was worth risking their lives. If they lived with even small amounts of reliable energy in their daily lives they would not have placed such great value on a few thousand BTUs of energy from a can of gasoline. They would have reacted like you and me.

The investigation will unfold, and the cause of the fire will be known; a broken valve and a cigarette butt, or a rusty pipe and a static spark. But it won’t really matter because they’ll ignore the real culprit. The real blame rests on short sighted and corrupt political leaders around the world who have perpetuated energy policies that keep the world addicted to dangerous and limited fossil fuel supplies. As a result, human beings compete for this limited energy with rationing accomplished by the economic divide. The billions of impoverished people at the bottom have not a chance of getting the energy they need. To make matters worse, as fossil fuel supplies dwindle and the earth’s population grows the problems will become acutely worse.

The only real solution to this worsening problem is to adopt global energy policies that improve access to low cost, abundant energy. That energy will have to be low carbon because to continue dumping fossil fuel waste into the environment in such increasing amounts would result in an environmental disaster! Solar and wind energy can help, but in most applications they are too expensive or too intermittent to be useful for the growing billions of energy destitute and impoverished people.

The only realistic alternative is nuclear energy. While nuclear power plants are relatively expensive to build, the per unit price drops with each successive plant of similar type built. Once built, nuclear plants are cheap to operate because the fuel costs are so low. New technologies like molten salt breeder reactors, fast breeder reactors, and “traveling wave” reactors offer additional fuel economy and safety advantages. Thorium and used fuel from existing reactors will provide an almost limitless supply of fuel as these new reactors spread across the world.

Pundits will argue the risk of meltdown is too great, but the truth is in the numbers. More than 100 people died in Kenya this week, and these types of accidents are becoming increasingly common. About 5,000 people die around the world each year in coal mining accidents. Tens of thousands more die prematurely from fossil fuel waste products dumped in the air. Yet the world takes these deaths in stride because we’ve been brainwashed to view these casualties as “worth the risk” and not reason enough to stop using fossil fuels.

By comparison, reactor accidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi, one of the “worst nuclear accidents” in history resulted in exactly zero deaths, and none are likely to occur in the future because radiation exposures to workers and the public have been low. While there is much media hype around “contaminated” soil and food, experience from places in the world with naturally high radiation levels, and from Chernobyl, where radioactive contamination of the soil was far worse than in Japan, has taught us that people have little to fear from the small increase above natural radiation they are likely to receive living near Fukushima.

The wealthy, elite anti-nuclear activists who jet around the globe to preach conservation and renewables own their share of the Sinai casualties. Their successful efforts to demonize nuclear energy and slow its expansion around the world serve to perpetuate the world’s reliance on fossil fuels. This in turn feeds the chronic energy shortages that exists for impoverished people everywhere. They promote so-called “green” renewable energy sources that, because of their intermittent nature, require almost continuous fossil fueled backup.

While renewable energy can help, realistically only nuclear energy can supply clean, carbon-free energy in sufficient quantities to feed an energy starved world.